Chapter 1: Introduction

The need for environmental assessment

Objective
Using the guide

1. The need for environmental assessment

Economic, social and environmental change is inherent to development. Whilst development aims to bring about positive change it can lead to
conflicts. In the past, the promotion of economic growth as the motor for increased well-being was the main development thrust with little
sensitivity to adverse social or environmental impacts. The need to avoid adverse impacts and to ensure long term benefits led to the concept of
sustainability. This has become accepted as an essential feature of development if the aim of increased well-being and greater equity in fulfilling
basic needs is to be met for this and future generations.

In order to predict environmental impacts of any development activity and to provide an opportunity to mitigate against negative impacts and
enhance positive impacts, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure was developed in the 1970s. An EIA may be defined as: a
formal process to predict the environmental consequences of human development activities and to plan appropriate measures to eliminate or
reduce adverse effects and to augment positive effects.

EIA thus has three main functions:

• to predict problems,
• to find ways to avoid them, and
• to enhance positive effects.

The third function is of particular importance. The EIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate ways in which the environment may be
improved as part of the development process. The EIA also predicts the conflicts and constraints between the proposed project, programme or
sectoral plan and its environment. It provides an opportunity for mitigation measures to be incorporated to minimize problems. It enables
monitoring programmes to be established to assess future impacts and provide data on which managers can take informed decisions to avoid
environmental damage.

EIA is a management tool for planners and decision makers and complements other project studies on engineering and economics.
Environmental assessment is now accepted as an essential part of development planning and management. It should become as familiar and
important as economic analysis in project evaluation.

The aim of any EIA should be to facilitate sustainable development. Beneficial environmental effects are maximized while adverse effects are
ameliorated or avoided to the greatest extent possible. EIA will help select and design projects, programmes or plans with long term viability and
therefore improve cost effectiveness.

It is important that an EIA is not just considered as part of the approval process. Volumes of reports produced for such a purpose, which are
neither read nor acted upon, will devalue the process. A key output of the EIA should be an action plan to be followed during implementation
and after implementation during the monitoring phase. To enable the action plan to be effective the EIA may also recommend changes to laws
and institutional structures.

Initially EIA was seen by some project promoters as a constraint to development but this view is gradually disappearing. It can, however, be a
useful constraint to unsustainable development. It is now well understood that environment and development are complementary and
interdependent and EIA is a technique for ensuring that the two are mutually reinforcing. A study carried out by the Environmental Protection
Agency (USA) in 1980 showed that there were significant changes to projects during the EIA process, marked improvements in environmental
protection measures and net financial benefits. The costs of EIA preparation and any delays were more than covered by savings accruing from
modifications, (Wathern, 1988).

Irrigated agriculture is crucial to the economy, health and welfare of a very large part of the developing world. It is too important to be
marginalized as it is vital for world food security. However, irrigated agriculture often radically changes land use and is a major consumer of
freshwater. Irrigation development thus has a major impact on the environment. All new irrigation and drainage development results in some
form of degradation. It is necessary to determine the acceptable level and to compensate for the degradation. This degradation may extend both
upstream and downstream of the irrigated area. The impacts may be both to the natural, physical environment and to the human environment. All
major donors consider large irrigation and drainage developments to be environmentally sensitive.
An EIA is concerned both with impacts of irrigation and drainage on the environment and with the sustainability of irrigation and drainage itself.
Clearly an EIA will not resolve all problems. There will be trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection as in all
development activities. However, without an objective EIA, informed decision making would be impossible.

Objective

This guide aims to assist staff in developing countries from various disciplines and backgrounds (government officials, consultants, planners) to
incorporate environmental considerations into planning, designing, implementing and regulating irrigation and drainage programmes, plans and
projects, thus leading to sustainable projects. The guide aims to be of general use throughout the developing world and has three main functions:

• to describe the methodology and output of an EIA;

• to provide inter-disciplinary advice related to irrigation and drainage to those engaged in preparing EIAs; and,
• to enhance institutional capacity for carrying out an EIA.

In developing countries irrigation development is mainly the responsibility of the public sector. This document therefore concentrates on public
sector irrigation projects. Whilst national irrigation authorities will not usually carry out EIAs, they will commission them, either as part of a
feasibility study or separately. They must therefore be familiar with EIA in order to formulate the terms of reference and to appraise the impact
statement. Private developers should also be required to demonstrate that their proposals are environmentally sound.

The objective has been to produce a brief reference text that will be of most benefit to non-specialists in developing countries who are perhaps
facing the need to carry out an environmental assessment for the first time. To ensure brevity, and accessibility to all readers, technical, scientific
or engineering content has been kept to a minimum. It is assumed that this information is readily available in other textbooks or manuals and that
many readers will already be familiar with some technical aspects.

Similarly, no detailed explanation of the philosophy of EIA is given as this is available in standard general texts. Throughout the guide the terms
EIA and environmental assessment have been used synonymously. A glossary of terms and abbreviations used in the text are included in Annex
1. Chapter 6 provides a guide to other publications considered of most use that are also widely available. Recommended texts, which are
considered particularly useful, are reviewed at the start of Chapter 6.

Using the guide

Environmental assessment is appropriate for both site specific projects and wider programmes or plans covering projects or sectoral activities
over a wide geographic area. In this document the term "project" is used interchangeably for both the site specific and wider meaning.
Rehabilitation or modernization programmes are more common than new green field projects and raise special issues which need to be addressed
by an EIA. They provide more opportunities to correct situations where the environment is adversely affected and they are usually richer in
available data, (Tiffen, 1989). Also, operation and maintenance reforms for regions or basins will benefit greatly from an EIA. As this guide has
been specifically prepared to address irrigation and drainage projects, plans and programmes, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to be used to
carry out environmental impact assessments of other water resources projects.

Initially EIA was used for specific, particularly large scale, projects such as dams, which have obvious long-term consequences. Now, however,
greater attention is given to the wider relationship between development and the environment. The relatively insignificant actions of many
individual people may cumulatively have a much greater impact on the environment than a single construction project. For example a
programme to support small-holder development, through agricultural credit schemes to Water User Groups, may not warrant an EIA if each
scheme is considered in isolation. However, the impact within a river basin or in the water sector in a region can be significant. A sectoral or
basin-wide EIA would enable an assessment of the collective impact of the programme. In a further example from Tamil Nadu, India, a decision
was made to provide free electricity to farmers to pump water for irrigation. Whilst this increased agricultural production it also led to
groundwater mining: the reduction in the groundwater level in some areas has resulted in severe environmental and economic problems.

To enable the EIA process to be of maximum benefit, it must be incorporated into the planning process of a country. The social, institutional and
legal issues concerned with the effective use of EIA are covered in Chapter 2. Chapter 5, on how to prepare terms of reference, has been
prepared to assist those who need to employ others to carry out EIAs on their behalf. The mechanics of carrying out an EIA together with a
description of the possible environmental impacts of irrigation and drainage are described, respectively, in Chapters 3 and 4.
Chapter 2: The context of environmental analysis

Policy framework
Social context
Institutional framework and EIA
Legal framework for EIA
Building institutional capacity

Policy framework

Increasingly, at the national level, new environmental policies are being introduced, perhaps including a National Environmental Action Plan or
National Plan for Sustainable Development. Such policies are often supported by legislation. Government policies in areas such as water, land
distribution and food production, especially if supported by legislation, are likely to be highly significant for irrigation and drainage projects. An
EIA should outline the policy environment relevant to the study in question. Results are also likely to be most easily understood if they are
interpreted in the light of prevailing policies.

Policies and regulations are sometimes conflicting and can contribute to degradation. It is within the scope of an EIA to highlight such conflicts
and detail their consequences in relation to the irrigation and drainage proposal under study. An example of conflicting policies would be an
agricultural policy to subsidize agro-chemicals to increase production and an environmental policy to limit the availability of persistent
chemicals. A totally laissez-faire policy will result in unsustainable development, for example through uncontrolled pollution and distortions in
wealth. This creates problems which future generations have to resolve. On the other hand, excessive government control of market forces may
also have negative environmental impacts. For example, free irrigation water leads to the inefficient use of this scarce and expensive resource,
inequities between head and tail users and waterlogging and salinity problems.

Legal and policy issues have far-reaching consequences for the environment and are included here to illustrate the complex nature of
environmental issues. The FAO Legislative Study 38, "The environmental impact of economic incentives for agricultural production: a
comparative law study", is a useful reference. A forthcoming FAO/World Bank/UNDP publication, "Water Sector Policy Review and Strategy
Formulation: A General Framework", will address the need for environmental issues to be integrated into water policy. If a regional, sector or
basin-wide EIA is needed, such issues will form an important part.

Social context

A project or programme and its environmental impacts exist within a social framework. The context in which an EIA is carried out will be
unique and stereotype solutions to environmental assessments are therefore not possible. Cultural practices, institutional structures and legal
arrangements, which form the basis of social structure, vary from country to country and sometimes, within a country, from one region to
another. It is a fundamental requirement to understand the social structure of the area under study as it will have a direct impact on the project
and the EIA.

Local, regional and national regulations, laws and organizations are interlinked. The way in which they are interlinked needs to be explicitly
understood as part of the EIA. An understanding of the institutional and legal framework concerning the environment and irrigation and drainage
development is critical to the success of any project or programme. Indeed, it is likely that recommendations arising from the EIA will include
restructuring or strengthening institutions, particularly at a local level, for example, ensuring adequate maintenance or effective monitoring of
drain water quality. Recommendations for new legal controls or limits may also form part of the EIA output; for example, stipulating a particular
flow regime in order to maintain a wetland.

At a local or regional level there may be particular regulations and customary practices which will influence environmental aspects of any
project and these must be understood. The participation of local groups and the direct beneficiaries, mainly farmers, is essential to successful
EIA. This may best be achieved by involving district councils. At the district level there is more interaction between sectors. Consultation with
local interest groups, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), will enable local views to be taken into account and their concerns
addressed. An awareness of social and cultural problems may enable solutions to be found and conflicts to be averted before project
implementation commences. Ignorance of a problem will prevent a satisfactory solution being found.

If land acquisition, economic rehabilitation (providing an alternative source of income) or resettlement of displaced people are factors in any
proposed development, special care will be needed in carrying out the EIA. In most countries such issues are socially and politically sensitive
and legally complex and must be identified early, during screening. They should be highlighted so that they are adequately studied by experts
early in project preparation.

Poor people often find themselves in a vicious circle. They are forced by their poverty to exploit natural resources in an unsustainable manner
and suffer from increasing poverty because of environmental degradation. They often inhabit fragile, marginal eco-zones in rural and,
increasingly, semi-urban areas. High population growth is linked to poverty and further contributes to the dynamics of the vicious circle as ever
increasing demands are made on finite natural resources. Therefore, the needs of the poor, their influence on the project and the project's impact
on vulnerable groups all require particular attention in an EIA.

Institutional framework and EIA

Environmental, water and land issues involve many disciplines and many government bodies. Data will therefore have to be collected and
collated from a wide range of technical ministries, other government authorities and parastatals. The interests of some bodies may not initially
appear to be relevant to irrigation and drainage. However, they may hold important information about the project and surrounding area on such
topics as land tenure, health, ecology and demography.

The link between different ministries and departments within ministries are often complex and the hierarchy for decision making unclear. There
is a tendency for each ministry to guard "its project" and not consult or seek information from other government bodies unless forced to. This is
directly contrary to the needs of an EIA. Even if formal structures exist there may be a lack of coordination between different organizations.
Informal links may have been established in practice in order to overcome awkward bureaucratic structures. These issues must be understood
and not oversimplified.

There may be conflict between government organizations, particularly between the institution promoting the development and that given the
mandate for environmental protection. In countries where some planning processes are undertaken at the regional or district level, the regional or
district councils make it easier for affected communities to put forward their views, which may differ from those of the central authorities. They
will have different agendas and approaches. The EIA process must be interactive and be sympathetic to the differing views; not biased towards a
particular organization.

One of the main conflicts arising from irrigation and drainage projects is between those responsible for agriculture and those for water. In some
countries, there are several key ministries with differing responsibility, such as agriculture, public works and irrigation, plus several parastatal
organizations and special authorities or commissions, some perhaps directly under the Office of the President. The institutional aspects are
complex; for example in Thailand, over 15 institutions have responsibility for various aspects of soil conservation work.

Increasingly, at the national level, new institutions are being created, or existing institutions reorganized, to address environmental issues. Often
a Ministry of the Environment will be created with a mandate to prepare legislation, set standards and provide a "policing" role. In addition, an
Environmental Protection Agency may also be created to coordinate environmental assessment activities and to monitor follow up actions. As
well as specific environmental agencies, new units or departments concerned with environmental issues are being created in technical ministries.
Such units may have narrow duties related to the responsibilities of the institution. For example, several units could be concerned with various
aspects of monitoring water pollution levels and setting acceptable quality standards. The responsibilities of all the relevant institutions needs to
be clearly understood.

Institutional weakness is one of the major reasons for environmentally unsound development. The multiplicity of institutions may also mitigate
against effective enforcement of environmental control measures. The EIA must cover such issues in depth and highlight contradictions, weak or
impractical legislation and institutional conflicts. To overcome such problems an EIA should propose appropriate solutions. This should include
institutional strengthening.

Legal framework for EIA

Environmental policy without appropriate legislation will be ineffective as, in turn, will be legislation without enforcement. Economic and
financial pressures will tend to dominate other concerns. In many developing countries legislation on environmental issues has been in existence
for many years. For example, laws exist in most countries for the prevention of water pollution, the protection of cultural heritage and for
minimum compensation flows. Much of the existing legislation or regulations have not been considered "environmental". Recently, much
specific new environmental legislation has been enacted. This may be as a response to major disasters, or may result from government policy,
public pressure or the general increased international awareness of the environmental dangers that now exist in the world. Relevant water and
land law as well as environmental protection legislation needs stating, understanding and analysing as part of an EIA.

New legislation may include a statutory requirement for an EIA to be done in a prescribed manner for specific development activities. When
carrying out an EIA it is thus essential to be fully aware of the statutory requirements and the legal responsibilities of the concerned institutions.
These are best given as an annex to the terms of reference. The legal requirements of the country must be satisfied. New laws can impose an
enormous burden on the responsible agencies. The statutory requirement to carry out an EIA for specific projects will, for example, require
expert staff to carry out the study, as well as officials to review the EIA and approve the project.

Laws designating what projects require EIA should, ideally, limit the statutory requirements to prevent EIA merely becoming a hurdle in the
approval process. This will prevent large volumes of work being carried out for little purpose. Most legislation lists projects for which EIA is a
discretionary requirement. The discretionary authority is usually the same body that approves an EIA. This arrangement allows limited resources
to be allocated most effectively. However, it is essential that the discretionary authority is publicly accountable.
When external financial support is required it will also be necessary to satisfy the obligations of the donor organization. Most major donors now
require an EIA for projects relating to irrigation and drainage. Chapter 6 gives details of publications outlining the requirements of the main
donors.

The function of environmental legislation can vary. It is not easy to give a precise definition of when an EIA is needed. Therefore the statutory
requirement for an EIA is not particularly well suited to law. On the other hand many of the most important environmental hazards are easily
addressed by law. For example, it is straightforward to set legal limits for pollution, flow levels, compensation etc: here the problem is one of
enforcement. It is normal for an EIA to assess the acceptability or severity of impacts in relation to legal limits and standards. However, it is
important to highlight cases where existing standards are insufficiently stringent to prevent adverse impacts and to recommend acceptable
standards. Enforcement problems can be partially addressed by changing institutional structures.

Laws relating to irrigated lands are complex and according to an FAO study of five African countries they are not generally applied (FAO,
1992). There are conflicts between modern and customary laws: the former tend to be given prominence although the latter are usually strong
locally. Traditional and customary rights have often developed in very different historical and political contexts and can vary greatly over a short
distance. They may also be mainly oral and imprecise. Local participation in the preparation of the EIA will help to understand important
customary rights and highlight possible weaknesses in any proposed development.

Building institutional capacity

To carry out an EIA

To implement the recommendations of an EIA

To carry out an EIA

It may be desirable to have both a Ministry of the Environment (which will have responsibility for setting norms and new legislation) and an
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, (as a coordinating authority to orchestrate the cross-sectoral EIA activity). Whatever the institutional
structure, the ministry promoting the development will usually be required to carry out an EIA or to commission others to carry it out on their
behalf. The EIA will then be approved or otherwise by the central regulating authorities. To enable this process to function satisfactorily trained
staff will be required in:

• the environmental authority for commissioning and effective review and approval of EIAs;
• the technical authority for carrying out EIAs or preparing terms of reference or guidelines for others to do the work; and,
• Universities and the private sector, should the work be put out to contract.

There is thus a clear need for skilled professional staff in a variety of organizations who are familiar and competent with EIAs.

To achieve the required skills, training should cover all educational levels. Environmental studies should be introduced in schools and
universities so that future expertise is nurtured. In-service training for both professional staff and technicians is important. Senior planners and
decision makers also need to attend short environmental awareness programmes so that they appreciate the issues raised in EIA reports and can
make enlightened decisions.

If environmental assessment is a statutory requirement, local expertise will be needed to carry out the work that this will impose. For large
projects, with external financial support, foreign expertise may be used but this would not be viable for most projects. Foreign consultants,
because they are outsiders, are at a disadvantage in making recommendations that are realistic and implementable. Local expertise, for both the
public and private sectors, must be developed through adequately funded training and technology transfer programmes. Training should focus on
the skills needed for an intersectoral decision making process at the crucial points in the project cycle. It should not aim to make pseudo EIA
specialists out of other technical specialists.

In those countries where there is no central environmental authority and no statutory regulations for EIA the need for skilled staff will be equally
important but less obvious. The pressure to carry out an EIA may come from external donors, the general public or specific pressure groups. In
this case those who carry out the work may come from a small pool of academics or from external consultants. Part of their remit should be to
train counterparts in government service. This situation is unsatisfactory in the long-term and will tend to restrict EIA to only the largest and
most controversial projects. Governments must address this problem by appropriate policies for environmental protection and adequate resources
to train skilled staff to carry out the work.

EIA is not a subject in itself but a procedure which relies on expertise from many disciplines. Training should not therefore be solely targeted to
environmental scientists or ecologists. It is important that training is provided for specialists in all disciplines involved in an EIA, from scientists
to sociologists and engineers to economists, so that they can contribute to meaningful EIAs. An important, but highly specialized area of training
is in the health aspects of irrigation development. The PEEM Secretariat organizes an intersectoral course on health opportunities in water
resources development which is held in developing countries.

Data are essential to an EIA and the organizations responsible for data collection and analysis, for meteorology, hydrology, water quality etc.
should be strengthened (or established if not already existing). The organizations must be well funded so that the data collected are reliable and
complete and the staff well trained and motivated. Inadequate and unreliable data will result in poor studies based purely on qualitative analysis
which can be subjective and easily refuted.

To implement the recommendations of an EIA

As part of an EIA, it may be necessary to consider how existing organizations will need to be changed or new laws promulgated in order to
ensure environmentally sustainable development. The implementation of mitigating measures or monitoring will often have an impact on the
work of one or several institutions. It will therefore be necessary to recommend precisely the structure and role of new units within an
organization or the restructuring of existing units, so that the proposed measures can be implemented effectively.

The EIA should also give recommendations on local capacity building. Definition of such local needs may involve several national and local
government authorities, NGOs or other participatory groups such as Water Users Associations and academic institutions. It is crucial that local
and not just central government institutional capacity is strengthened. This will help to overcome the feeling that environmental issues are
imposed from a remote central authority and are a diversion from more important development activities. It will also build into project planning
the importance of environmental management.

Once a project has been approved, responsibility for ensuring that EIA recommendations are implemented may fall to a weak unit within the
executing agency. This institutional weakness can considerably devalue an EIA and render it a mere hurdle on the path to implementation to be
discarded once a project starts. When preparing an EIA it is essential that the environmental authorities are identified and strengthened to ensure
they are not toothless. The authority responsible for project implementation should be accountable to "watchdog" environmental agencies. One
way of ensuring this would be to link budget allocations from the Ministry of Finance/Planning to satisfactory performance.
Chapter 3: EIA process

Resources
Screening
Scoping
Prediction and mitigation
Management and monitoring
Auditing
Public participation
Managing uncertainty
Techniques
Final report - Environmental impact statement

The EIA process makes sure that environmental issues are raised when a project or plan is first discussed and that all concerns are addressed as a
project gains momentum through to implementation. Recommendations made by the EIA may necessitate the redesign of some project
components, require further studies, suggest changes which alter the economic viability of the project or cause a delay in project implementation.
To be of most benefit it is essential that an environmental assessment is carried out to determine significant impacts early in the project cycle so
that recommendations can be built into the design and cost-benefit analysis without causing major delays or increased design costs. To be
effective once implementation has commenced, the EIA should lead to a mechanism whereby adequate monitoring is undertaken to realize
environmental management. An important output from the EIA process should be the delineation of enabling mechanisms for such effective
management.

The way in which an EIA is carried out is not rigid: it is a process comprising a series of steps. These steps are outlined below and the techniques
more commonly used in EIA are described in some detail in the section Techniques. The main steps in the EIA process are:

• screening
• scoping
• prediction and mitigation
• management and monitoring
• audit

Figure 1 shows a general flow diagram of the EIA process, how it fits in with parallel technical and economic studies and the role of public
participation. In some cases, such as small-scale irrigation schemes, the transition from identification through to detailed design may be rapid
and some steps in the EIA procedure may be omitted.

• Screening often results in a categorization of the project and from this a decision is made on whether or not a full EIA is to be carried out.

• Scoping is the process of determining which are the most critical issues to study and will involve community participation to some degree. It is
at this early stage that EIA can most strongly influence the outline proposal.

• Detailed prediction and mitigation studies follow scoping and are carried out in parallel with feasibility studies.

• The main output report is called an Environmental Impact Statement, and contains a detailed plan for managing and
monitoring environmental impacts both during and after implementation.

• Finally, an audit of the EIA process is carried out some time after implementation. The audit serves a useful feedback and learning function.

FIGURE 1 Flow diagram of the EIA process and parallel studies

Resources

An EIA team for an irrigation and drainage study is likely to be composed of some or all of the following: a team leader; a hydrologist; an
irrigation/drainage engineer; a fisheries biologist/ecologist; an agronomist/pesticide expert; a soil conservation expert; a
biological/environmental scientist; an economist, a social scientist and a health scientist (preferably a epidemiologist). The final structure of the
team will vary depending on the project. Specialists may also be required for fieldwork, laboratory testing, library research, data processing,
surveys and modelling. The team leader will require significant management skill to co-ordinate the work of a team with diverse skills and
knowledge.

There will be a large number of people involved in EIA apart from the full-time team members. These people will be based in a wide range of
organizations, such as the project proposing and authorizing bodies, regulatory authorities and various interest groups. Such personnel would be
located in various agencies and also in the private sector; a considerable number will need specific EIA training.

The length of the EIA will obviously depend on the programme, plan or project under review. However, the process usually lasts from between 6
and 18 months from preparation through to review. It will normally be approximately the same length as the feasibility study of which it should
form an integral part. It is essential that the EIA team and the team carrying out the feasibility study work together and not in isolation from each
other. This often provides the only opportunity for design changes to be made and mitigation measures to be incorporated in the project design.

The cost of the study will vary considerably and only very general estimates can be given here. Typically, costs vary from between 0.1 and 0.3
percent of the total project cost for large projects over US$ 100 million and from 0.2 to 0.5 percent for projects less than US$ 100 million. For
small projects the cost could increase to between 1 and 3 percent of the project cost.

Screening

Screening is the process of deciding on whether an EIA is required. This may be determined by size (eg greater than a predetermined surface
area of irrigated land that would be affected, more than a certain percentage or flow to be diverted or more than a certain capital expenditure).
Alternatively it may be based on site-specific information. For example, the repair of a recently destroyed diversion structure is unlikely to
require an EIA whilst a major new headwork structure may. Guidelines for whether or not an EIA is required will be country specific depending
on the laws or norms in operation. Legislation often specifies the criteria for screening and full EIA. All major donors screen projects presented
for financing to decide whether an EIA is required.
The output from the screening process is often a document called an Initial Environmental Examination or Evaluation (IEE). The main
conclusion will be a classification of the project according to its likely environmental sensitivity. This will determine whether an EIA is needed
and if so to what detail.

Scoping

Scoping occurs early in the project cycle at the same time as outline planning and pre-feasibility studies. Scoping is the process of identifying the
key environmental issues and is perhaps the most important step in an EIA. Several groups, particularly decision makers, the local population
and the scientific community, have an interest in helping to deliberate the issues which should be considered, and scoping is designed to canvass
their views, (Wathern 1988).

Scoping is important for two reasons. First, so that problems can be pinpointed early allowing mitigating design changes to be made before
expensive detailed work is carried out. Second, to ensure that detailed prediction work is only carried out for important issues. It is not the
purpose of an EIA to carry out exhaustive studies on all environmental impacts for all projects. If key issues are identified and a full scale EIA
considered necessary then the scoping should include terms of reference for these further studies.

At this stage the option exists for cancelling or drastically revising the project should major environmental problems be identified. Equally it
may be the end of the EIA process should the impacts be found to be insignificant. Once this stage has passed, the opportunity for major changes
to the project is restricted.

Before the scoping exercise can be fully started, the remit of the study needs to be defined and agreed by the relevant parties. These will vary
depending on the institutional structure. At a minimum, those who should contribute to determining the remit will include those who decide
whether a policy or project is implemented, those carrying out the EIA (or responsible for having it carried out by others) and those carrying out
parallel engineering and economic studies relating to the proposal. Chapter 5 gives details on preparing terms of reference for an EIA. A critical
issue to determine is the breadth of the study. For example, if a proposed project is to increase the area of irrigated agriculture in a region by
10%, is the remit of the EIA to study the proposal only or also to consider options that would have the same effect on production?

A major activity of scoping is to identify key interest groups, both governmental and non-governmental, and to establish good lines of
communication. People who are affected by the project need to hear about it as soon as possible. Their knowledge and perspectives may have a
major bearing on the focus of the EIA. Rapid rural appraisal techniques provide a means of assessing the needs and views of the affected
population.
The main EIA techniques used in scoping are baseline studies, checklists, matrices and network diagrams. These techniques collect and present
knowledge and information in a straightforward way so that logical decisions can be made about which impacts are most significant. Risk and
uncertainty are discussed further in the section Managing uncertainty.

Prediction and mitigation

Once the scoping exercise is complete and the major impacts to be studied have been identified, prediction work can start. This stage forms the
central part of an EIA. Several major options are likely to have been proposed either at the scoping stage or before and each option may require
separate prediction studies. Realistic and affordable mitigating measures cannot be proposed without first estimating the scope of the impacts,
which should be in monetary terms wherever possible. It then becomes important to quantify the impact of the suggested improvements by
further prediction work. Clearly, options need to be discarded as soon as their unsuitability can be proved or alternatives shown to be superior in
environmental or economic terms, or both. It is also important to test the "without project" scenario.

An important outcome of this stage will be recommendations for mitigating measures. This would be contained in the Environmental Impact
Statement. Clearly the aim will be to introduce measures which minimize any identified adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts. Formal
and informal communication links need to be established with teams carrying out feasibility studies so that their work can take proposals into
account. Similarly, feasibility studies may indicate that some options are technically or economically unacceptable and thus environmental
prediction work for these options will not be required.

Many mitigating measures do not define physical changes but require management or institutional changes or additional investment, such as for
health services. Mitigating measures may also be procedural changes, for example, the introduction of, or increase in, irrigation service fees to
promote efficiency and water conservation. Table 6 in Chapter 4 describes the most common adverse impacts associated with irrigation and
drainage schemes and some appropriate mitigating measures.

By the time prediction and mitigation are undertaken, the project preparation will be advanced and a decision will most likely have been made to
proceed with the project. Considerable expenditure may have already been made and budgets allocated for the implementation of the project.
Major changes could be disruptive to project processing and only accepted if prediction shows that impacts will be considerably worse than
originally identified at the scoping stage. For example, an acceptable measure might be to alter the mode of operation of a reservoir to protect
downstream fisheries, but a measure proposing an alternative to dam construction could be highly contentious at this stage. To avoid conflict it is
important that the EIA process commences early in the project cycle.

This phase of an EIA will require good management of a wide range of technical specialists with particular emphasis on:
• prediction methods;
• interpretation of predictions, with and without mitigating measures;
• assessment of comparisons.

It is important to assess the required level of accuracy of predictions. Mathematical modelling is a valuable technique, but care must be taken to
choose models that suit the available data. Because of the level of available knowledge and the complexity of the systems, physical systems are
modelled more successfully than ecological systems which in turn are more successfully modelled than social systems. Social studies (including
institutional capacity studies) will probably produce output in non-numerical terms. Expert advice, particularly from experts familiar with the
locality, can provide quantification of impacts that cannot be modelled. Various techniques are available to remove the bias of individual
opinion.

Checklists, matrices, networks diagrams, graphical comparisons and overlays, are all techniques developed to help carry out an EIA and present
the results of an EIA in a format useful for comparing options. The main quantifiable methods of comparing options are by applying weightings,
to environmental impacts or using economic cost-benefit analysis or a combination of the two. Numerical values, or weightings, can be applied
to different environmental impacts to (subjectively) define their relative importance. Assigning economic values to all environmental impacts is
not recommended as the issues are obscured by the single, final answer. However, economic techniques, can provide insight into comparative
importance where different environmental impacts are to be compared, such as either losing more wetlands or resettling a greater number of
people.

When comparing a range of proposals or a variety of mitigation or enhancement activities, a number of characteristics of different impacts need
to be highlighted. The relative importance of impacts needs agreeing, usually following a method of reaching a consensus but including
economic considerations. The uncertainty in predicting the impact should be clearly noted. Finally, the time frame in which the impact will occur
should be indicated, including whether or not the impact is irreversible.

Management and monitoring

The part of the EIS covering monitoring and management is often referred to as the Environmental Action Plan or Environmental
Management Plan. This section not only sets out the mitigation measures needed for environmental management, both in the short and long
term, but also the institutional requirements for implementation. The term 'institutional' is used here in its broadest context to encompass
relationships:
• established by law between individuals and government;
• between individuals and groups involved in economic transactions;
• developed to articulate legal, financial and administrative links among public agencies;
• motivated by socio-psychological stimuli among groups and individuals (Craine, 1971).

The above list highlights the breadth of options available for environmental management, namely: changes in law; changes in prices; changes in
governmental institutions; and, changes in culture which may be influenced by education and information dissemination. All the management
proposals need to be clearly defined and costed. One of the more straightforward and effective changes is to set-up a monitoring programme
with clear definition as to which agencies are responsible for data collection, collation, interpretation and implementation of management
measures.

The purpose of monitoring is to compare predicted and actual impacts, particularly if the impacts are either very important or the scale of the
impact cannot be very accurately predicted. The results of monitoring can be used to manage the environment, particularly to highlight problems
early so that action can be taken. The range of parameters requiring monitoring may be broad or narrow and will be dictated by the 'prediction
and mitigation' stage of the EIA. Typical areas of concern where monitoring is weak are: water quality, both inflow and outflow; stress in
sensitive ecosystems; soil fertility, particularly salinization problems; water related health hazards; equity of water distributions; groundwater
levels.

The use of satellite imagery to monitor changes in land use and the 'health' of the land and sea is becoming more common and can prove a cost-
effective tool, particularly in areas with poor access. Remotely sensed data have the advantage of not being constrained by political and
administrative boundaries. They can be used as one particular overlay in a GIS. However, authorization is needed for their use, which may be
linked to national security issues, and may thus be hampered by reluctant governments.

Monitoring should not be seen as an open-ended commitment to collect data. If the need for monitoring ceases, data collection should cease.
Conversely, monitoring may reveal the need for more intensive study and the institutional infrastructure must be sufficiently flexible to adapt to
changing demands. The information obtained from monitoring and management can be extremely useful for future EIAs, making them both
more accurate and more efficient.

The Environmental Management Plan needs to not only include clear recommendations for action and the procedures for their implementation
but must also define a programme and costs. It must be quite clear exactly how management and mitigation methods are phased with project
implementation and when costs will be incurred. Mitigation and management measures will not be adopted unless they can be shown to be
practicable and good value for money. The plan should also stipulate that if, during project implementation, major changes are introduced, or if
the project is aborted, the EIA procedures will be re-started to evaluate the effect of such actions.

Auditing

In order to capitalise on the experience and knowledge gained, the last stage of an EIA is to carry out an Environmental Audit some time after
completion of the project or implementation of a programme. It will therefore usually be done by a separate team of specialists to that working
on the bulk of the EIA. The audit should include an analysis of the technical, procedural and decision-making aspects of the EIA. Technical
aspects include: the adequacy of the baseline studies, the accuracy of predictions and the suitability of mitigation measures. Procedural aspects
include: the efficiency of the procedure, the fairness of the public involvement measures and the degree of coordination of roles and
responsibilities. Decision-making aspects include: the utility of the process for decision making and the implications for development, (adapted
from Sadler in Wathern, 1988). The audit will determine whether recommendations and requirements made by the earlier EIA steps were
incorporated successfully into project implementation. Lessons learnt and formally described in an audit can greatly assist in future EIAs and
build up the expertise and efficiency of the concerned institutions.

Public participation

Projects or programmes have significant impacts on the local population. Whilst the aim is to improve the well being of the population, a lack of
understanding of the people and their society may result in development that has considerable negative consequences. More significantly, there
may be divergence between national economic interests and those of the local population. For example, the need to increase local rice production
to satisfy increasing consumption in the urban area may differ from the needs as perceived by the local farmers. To allow for this, public
participation in the planning process is essential. The EIA provides an ideal forum for checking that the affected public have been adequately
consulted and their views taken into account in project preparation.

The level of consultation will vary depending on the type of plan or project. New projects involving resettlement or displacement will require the
most extensive public participation. As stated before, the purpose of an EIA is to improve projects and this, to some extent, can only be achieved
by involving those people directly or indirectly affected. The value of environmental amenities is not absolute and consensus is one way of
establishing values. Public consultation will reveal new information, improve understanding and enable better choices to be made. Without
consultation, legitimate issues may not be heard, leading to conflict and unsustainability.

The community should not only be consulted they should be actively involved in environmental matters. The International Union for the
Conservation of Nature, IUCN promotes the concept of Primary Environmental Care whereby farmers, for example, with assistance from
extension services, are directly involved in environmental management. The earlier the public are involved, the better. Ideally this will be before
a development proposal is fully defined. It is an essential feature of successful scoping, at which stage feedback will have the maximum
influence. Openness about uncertainty should be a significant feature of this process. As the EIA progresses, public consultation is likely to be
decreased though it is important to disseminate information. The publication of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will normally
be accompanied by some sort of public hearing that needs to be chaired by a person with good communication skills. He/she may not be a
member of the EIA team.

There are no clear rules about how to involve the public and it is important that the process remains innovative and flexible. In practice, the
views of people affected by the plan are likely to be heard through some form of representation rather than directly. It is therefore important to
understand how decisions are made locally and what are the methods of communication, including available government extension services. The
range of groups outside the formal structure with relevant information are likely to include: technical and scientific societies; Water User
Groups; NGOs; experts on local culture; and religious groups. However, it is important to find out which groups are under-represented and
which ones are responsible for access to natural resources, namely: grazing, water, fishing and forest products. The views of racial minorities,
women, religious minorities, political minorities and lower cast groups are commonly overlooked, (World Bank, 1991).

There has been an enormous increase in the number of environmental NGOs and "Green" pressure groups throughout the world. Such
organizations often bring environmental issues to the attention of the local press. However, this should not deter consultation with such
organizations as the approach to EIA should be open and positive with the aim of making improvements. Relevant NGOs should be identified
and their experience and technical capacity put to good use.

In some countries, open public meetings are the most common technique to enable public participation. However, the sort of open debate
engendered at such meetings is often both culturally alien and unacceptable. Alternative techniques must be used. Surveys, workshops, small
group meetings and interviews with key groups and individuals are all techniques that may be useful. Tools such as maps, models and posters
can help to illustrate points and improve communication. Where resettlement is proposed, extensive public participation must be allowed which
will, at a minimum, involve an experienced anthropologist or sociologist who speaks the local language. He/she can expect to spend months,
rather than weeks, in the field.

Information dissemination can be achieved using a number of mechanisms including the broadcasting media, in particular newspapers and radio.
Posters and leaflets are also useful and need to be distributed widely to such locations as schools, clinics, post offices, community centres,
religious buildings, bus stops, shops etc. The EIA process must be seen to be fair.
The public participation/consultation and information dissemination activities need to be planned and budgeted. The social scientist team
member should define how and when activities take place and also the strategy: extensive field work is expensive. It is important to note that
public participation activities are often reported as a separate section of the final EIA. Where experience of managing community involvement is
limited, training is highly recommended. Further reading on public participation can be obtained from: Ahmed L and G K Sammy (1988) and on
Rapid Rural Appraisal from Chambers R (1981). Rapid Rural Appraisal techniques may be an appropriate and cost effective method of
assessment.

Managing uncertainty

An EIA involves prediction and thus uncertainty is an integral part. There are two types of uncertainty associated with environmental impact
assessments: that associated with the process and, that associated with predictions. With the former the uncertainty is whether the most important
impacts have been identified or whether recommendations will be acted upon or ignored. For the latter the uncertainty is in the accuracy of the
findings. The main types of uncertainty and the ways in which they can be minimized are discussed by de Jongh in Wathern (1988). They can be
summarized as follows:

• uncertainty of prediction: this is important at the data collection stage and the final certainty will only be resolved once implementation
commences. Research can reduce the uncertainty;

• uncertainty of values: this reflects the approach taken in the EIA process. Final certainty will be determined at the time decisions are made.
Improved communications and extensive negotiations should reduce this uncertainty;

• uncertainty of related decision: this affects the decision making element of the EIA process and final certainty will be determined by post
evaluation. Improved coordination will reduce uncertainty.

The importance of very wide consultation cannot be overemphasized in minimizing the risk of missing important impacts. The significance of
impacts is subjective, but the value judgements required are best arrived at by consensus: public participation and consultation with a wide sector
of the community will reduce uncertainty. One commonly recurring theme is the dilemma of whether to place greater value on short-term
benefits or long-term problems.

The accuracy of predictions is dependent on a variety of factors such as lack of data or lack of knowledge. It is important not to focus on
predictions that are relatively easy to calculate at the expense of impacts that may be far more significant but difficult to analyse. Prediction
capabilities are generally good in the physical and chemical sciences, moderate in ecological sciences and poor in social sciences. Surveys are
the most wide-spread technique for estimating people's responses and possible future actions.

The results of the EIA should indicate the level of uncertainty with the use of confidence limits and probability analyses wherever possible.
Sensitivity analysis similar to that used in economic evaluation, could be used if adequate quantifiable data are available. A range of outcomes
can be found by repeating predictions and adjusting key variables.

EIA cannot give a precise picture of the future, much as the Economic Internal Rate of Return cannot give a precise indication of economic
success. EIA enables uncertainty to be managed and, as such, is an aid to better decision making. A useful management axiom is to preserve
flexibility in the face of uncertainty.

Techniques

Baseline studies
The ICID Check-list
Matrices
Network diagrams
Overlays
Mathematical modelling
Expert advice
Economic techniques

Baseline studies

Baseline studies using available data and local knowledge will be required for scoping. Once key issues have been identified, the need for further
in-depth studies can be clearly identified and any additional data collection initiated. The ICID Check-list will be found useful to define both
coarse information required for scoping and further baseline studies required for prediction and monitoring. Specialists, preferably with local
knowledge, will be needed in each key area identified. They will need to define further data collection, to ensure that it is efficient and targeted
to answer specific questions, and to quantify impacts. A full year of baseline data is desirable to capture seasonal effects of many environmental
phenomena. However, to avoid delay in decision making, short-term data monitoring should be undertaken in parallel with long-term collection
to provide conservative estimates of environmental impacts.

The ICID Check-list

A comprehensive and user-friendly checklist is an invaluable aid for several activities of an EIA, particularly scoping and defining baseline
studies. "The ICID Environmental Check-List to Identify Environmental Effects of Irrigation, Drainage and Flood Control Projects" (Mock and
Bolton, 1993) is recommended for use in any irrigation and drainage EIA. The Check-list has been prepared for non-specialists and enables
much time-consuming work to be carried out in advance of expert input. It includes extensive data collection sheets. The collected data can then
be used to answer a series of questions to identify major impacts and to identify shortages of data. A matrix indicates which data are linked to
which questions. Chapter 4 describes the major impacts based on the 8 Check-list topics.

The results sheet from the Check-list is reproduced as Table 1. The very simple layout of the sheet enables an overview of impacts to be
presented clearly which is of enormous value for the scoping process. Similarly, data shortages can be readily seen. The process of using the
ICID Check-list may be repeated at different stages of an EIA with varying levels of detail. Once scoping has been completed, the results sheet
may be modified to omit minor topics and to change the horizontal classification to provide further information about the impacts being
assessed. At this point the output from the Check-list can be useful as an input to matrices. The ICID Check-list is also available as a
WINDOWS based software package. This enables the rapid production of a report directly from the field study.
Chapter 4: Major impacts of irrigation and drainage projects

Hydrology
Water and air quality
Soil properties and safety erects
Erosion and sedimentation
Biological and ecological change
Socio-economic impacts
Ecological imbalances
Human health

When considering impacts, two perspectives must be taken into account, those of:

• the project on the environment, and

• external factors on the project (externalities).

In the detailed sections below, many of the impacts described are most extreme in the case of new irrigated areas. However, rehabilitation and
changes resulting from alterations to the operating infrastructure, for example, will also have environmental impacts that may not at first be
anticipated. The intensification of agriculture can lead to groundwater pollution related to the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers.
Improved efficiency may significantly reduce return flows which are often utilized downstream by other irrigation schemes or wildlife habitats.
Similarly, upstream developments are likely to impact on an irrigation scheme either in the form of reduced water availability (surface or
groundwater) or reduced water quality.

Different types of irrigation will have different impacts and it should not be assumed that modern methods will have fewer impacts: they may
significantly increase energy consumption and lead to social problems due to reduced employment in agriculture. Impacts will also vary
according to the stage of implementation. For example, during the construction period there may be specific health and other social risks due to
an influx of migrant workers living in temporary and unsanitary accommodation. Later, once the project has been operating for several years,
cumulative impacts may begin to present serious environmental constraints to project sustainability. Such issues must be predicted by the EIA
and mitigation measures prepared.

The most common problems of, and threats to, irrigation schemes are listed in Table 5, together with potential mitigation measures. Irrigation is
defined as much, if not more, by farmers and managers as by the physical infrastructure; the 'hardware'. Its sustainable operation is just as
dependent on the 'soft' environment: education, institutional building, legal structures and external support services. These are all powerful tools
to ensure sustainability in conjunction with well-designed and well-managed hardware and Table 5 indicates that many of the mitigation
measures are 'soft'.

The sections below describe the most common environmental impacts associated with irrigation schemes. Under each item, both positive and
negative impacts are briefly described and the most usual mitigating measures outlined. The opportunity to identify positive impacts and to
propose measures to enhance such impacts should not be neglected. The structure of the chapter generally follows that of the ICID
Environmental Check-list and is divided into eight major sections. As a slight deviation from the Check-list, human health has been included, in
order to present the human health dimensions of the environmental impacts.

TABLE 5 Main problems resulting in the non-sustainability of irrigation and drainage schemes and appropriate mitigation measures

Problem Mitigation measures

Degradation of irrigated land: - Improve I & D operation to match demand both 'how much & when'.
Salinization - Provide drainage including disposal of water to evaporation ponds or the sea if quality of river flow
adversely affected by drainage water.
Alkalization - Maintain channels to prevent seepage, and reduce inefficiencies resulting from siltation and weeds.
Allow for access to channels for maintenance in design.
Waterlogging - Provide water for leaching as a specific operation.

Soil acidification - Set-up or adjust irrigation management infrastructure to ensure sufficient income to maintain both the
irrigation and drainage systems.
- Analyse soils and monitor changes so that potential problems can be managed.
Reduced socio-economic - Manage I & D to prevent disease spread.
conditions:
Increased incidence of water related - Educate about causes of disease.
disease

Increased inequity - Improve health facilities.

Weaker community infrastructure - Allow sufficient time and money for extensive public participation to ensure that plans are optimal,
that all sections of affected society are considered and that local institutions are in place to sustain
irrigated agriculture, particularly in respect of land and water rights.
- Consider markets, financial services and agricultural extension in conjunction with proposed irrigation
and drainage changes.
- Ensure that agricultural intensification does not preclude other economic or subsistence activity, such
as household vegetables, fodder or growing trees for firewood.
- Provide short-term support and/or skills for an alternative livelihood if irrigation removes existing
livelihood
Poor water quality: - Define and enforce return water quality levels (including monitoring).
Reduction in irrigation water quality - Control industrial development.

Water quality problems for - Designate land for saline water disposal; build separate disposal channels.
downstream users caused by
irrigation return flow quality

- Educate for pesticide or sewage contamination dangers.

- Monitor irrigation water quality
Ecological degradation: - Define ecological requirements.
Reduced big-diversity in project area - Operate dams to suit downstream requirements and encourage wildlife around reservoirs (see Sections
4.1.3 and 4.5).
Damage to downstream ecosystems - Designate land (in law and supported by protection institutions) for flood plains; wetlands; watersheds;
due to reduced water quantity and drainage water disposal; river corridors.
quality

Ground water depletion: - Define and enforce abstraction regulations.

Dry drinking & irrigation wells - Monitor ground water levels.

Saline intrusion at coasts - Adjust abstraction charges.

Reduced base flow/wetlands

Hydrology

Low flow regime

Flood regime
Operation of dams
Fall of water table
Rise of water table
This section is concerned with the consequences of impacts resulting from a change in the flow regime of rivers, or a change in the movement of
the water table, through the seasons. The consumptive nature of irrigation means that some change to the local hydrological regime will occur
when new schemes are constructed and, to a lesser extent, when old schemes are rehabilitated. The ecology and uses of a river will have
developed as a consequence of the existing regime and may not be able to adapt easily to major changes. It is also important to recognize the
interrelationship between river flows and the water table. During high flow periods, recharge tends to occur through the river bed whereas
groundwater often contributes to low flows. Figure 3 is a conceptual diagram of flow through a river-supplied irrigation scheme. Figure 4
illustrates the links between surface and groundwater.

Low flow regime

Changes to the low flow regime may have significant negative impacts on downstream users, whether they abstract water (irrigation schemes,
drinking supplies) or use the river for transportation or hydropower. Minimum demands from both existing and potential future users need to be
clearly identified and assessed in relation to current and future low flows. The quality of low flows is also important. Return flows are likely to
have significant quantities of pollutants. Low flows need to be high enough to ensure sufficient dilution of pollutants discharged from irrigation
schemes and other sources such as industry and urban areas. A reduction in the natural river flow together with a discharge of lower quality
drainage water can have severe negative impacts on downstream users, including irrigation schemes.

Habitats both within and alongside rivers are particularly rich, often supporting a high diversity of species. Large changes to low flows (±20%)
will alter micro-habitats of which wetlands are a special case. It is particularly important to identify any endangered species and determine the
impact of any changes on their survival. Such species are often endangered because of their restrictive ecological requirements. An example is
the Senegal river downstream of the Manantali Dam where the extent of wetlands has been considerably reduced, fisheries have declined and
recession irrigation has all but disappeared.

The ecology of estuaries is sensitive to the salinity of the water which may be determined by the low flows. Saline intrusion into the estuary will
also affect drinking water supplies and fish catches. It may also create breeding places for anopheline vectors of malaria that breed in brackish
water.

The operation of dams offers excellent opportunities to mitigate the potential negative impacts of changes to low flows.
FIGURE 3 Conceptual diagram of the irrigation return flow system for a given reach of a river system (Utah State University
Foundation, 1969)
FIGURE 4 The interrelationship between surface water and groundwater
Flood regime

Uncontrolled floods cause tremendous damage and flood control is therefore often an added social and environmental benefit of reservoirs built
to supply irrigation water. However, flood protection works, although achieving their purpose locally, increase flooding downstream, which
needs to be taken into account.

Radically altered flood regimes may also have negative impacts. Any disruption to flood recession agriculture needs to be studied as it is often
highly productive but may have low visibility due to the migratory nature of the farmers practicing it. Flood waters are important for fisheries
both in rivers and particularly in estuaries. Floods trigger spawning and migration and carry nutrients to coastal waters. Controlled floods may
result in a reduction of groundwater recharge via flood plains and a loss of seasonal or permanent wetlands. Finally, changes to the river
morphology may result because of changes to the sediment carrying capacity of the flood waters. This may be either a positive or negative
impact.

As with low flows, the operation of dams offers excellent opportunities to mitigate the potential negative impacts of changes to flood flows. The
designation of flood plains may also be a useful measure that allows groundwater recharge and reduces peak discharges downstream. This is one
of the positive functions of many areas of wetland.

It is important that new irrigation infrastructure does not adversely effect the natural drainage pattern, thus causing localized flooding.

Operation of dams

The manner in which dams are operated has a significant impact on the river downstream. There is a range of measures that can be undertaken to
reduce adverse environmental impacts caused by changing the hydrological regime that need not necessarily reduce the efficacy of the dam in
terms of its main functions, namely irrigation, flood protection and hydropower. Multi-purpose reservoirs offer enormous scope for minimizing
adverse impacts. In the case of modifying low flows, identifying downstream demands to determine minimum compensatory flows, both for the
natural and human environment, is the key requirement and such demands need to be allowed for at the design stage. The ability to mimic
natural flooding may require modifications to traditional dam offtake facilities. In particular, passing flood flows early in the season to enable
timely recession agriculture may have the added advantage of passing flows carrying high sediment loads.

A number of disease hazards are associated with dams some of which can be minimized, others eliminated by careful operation. They include
malaria, schistosomiasis and river blindness; this is discussed more fully in the section Human health.
Rooted aquatic weeds along the shore (or in shallow reservoirs) can be partially controlled by alternate desiccation and drowning. In some parts
of the world local communities are willing to de-weed reservoirs and use the weeds as animal fodder.

Fall of water table

A possible advantage of reducing the water table level prior to the rainy season is that it may increase the potential for groundwater recharge.
Lowering the water table by the provision of drainage to irrigation schemes with high water tables brings benefits to agriculture.

Lowering the groundwater table by only a few metres adversely affects existing users of groundwater whether it is required for drinking water
for humans and animals or to sustain plant life (particularly wetlands), especially at dry times of the year. Springs are fed by groundwater and
will finally dry up if the level falls. Similarly low flows in rivers will be reduced. Any changing availability of groundwater for drinking water
supply needs to be assessed in terms of the economics of viable alternatives. Poor people may be disproportionately disadvantaged. They may
also be forced to use sources of water that carry health risks, particularly guinea worm infection and schistosomiasis. In parts of Asia there are
indications that lowering the ground level may favour the sandfly which may be vectors for diseases such as visceral leishmaniasis.

Saline intrusion along the coast is a problem associated with a falling groundwater level with severe environmental and economic consequences.

A continued reduction in the water table level (groundwater mining), apart from deleting an important resource, may lead to significant land
subsidence with consequent damage to structures and difficulties in operating hydraulic structures for flood defence, drainage and irrigation.
Todd (1980) gives an example of a drop in ground level of over 3 m associated with a 60 m drop in groundwater level over a period of 50 years
in the Central Valley, California. Vulnerable areas are those with compressible strata, such as clays and some fine-grained sediments. Any
structural change in the soil is often irreversible. The ground level can fall with a lowering of the water table if the soils are organic. Peats shrink
and compact significantly on draining, with consequent lowering of the ground level by several metres.

Particular care is needed in the drainage of tropical coastal swamp regions as the FeSO 4 soils can become severely acidic resulting in the
formation of "cat-clays".

A number of negative consequences of a falling water table are irreversible and difficult to compensate for, eg salt water intrusion and land
subsidence, and therefore groundwater abstraction needs controlling either by licensing, other legal interventions or economic disincentives.
Over-exploitation of groundwater, or groundwater mining, will have severe consequences, both environmental and economic, and should be
given particular importance in any EIA.
Rise of water table

In the long-term, one of the most frequent problems of irrigation schemes is the rise in the local water-table (waterlogging). Low irrigation
efficiencies (as low as 20 to 30% in some areas) are one of the main causes of rise of water table. Poor water distribution systems, poor main
system management and archaic in-field irrigation practices are the main reason. The ICID recommendation to increase field application
efficiency to even 50% could significantly reduce the rise in the groundwater. The groundwater level rise can be spectacularly fast in flat areas
where the water table has a low hydraulic gradient. The critical water table depth is between 1.5 and 2 m depending on soil characteristics, the
potential evapotranspiration rate and the root depth of the vegetation/crops. Groundwater rising under capillary action will evaporate, leaving
salts in the soil. The problem is of particular concern in arid and semi-arid areas with major salinity problems. A high water table also makes the
soil difficult to work.

FIGURE 5 Causes and impacts of reduced water quality in a river system

Good irrigation management, closely matching irrigation demands and supply, can reduce seepage and increase irrigation efficiency, thereby
reducing the groundwater recharge. The provision of drainage will alleviate the problem locally but may create problems if the disposal water is
of a poor quality. Apart from measures to improve water management, two options to reduce seepage are to line canals in highly permeable areas
and to design the irrigation infrastructure to reduce wastage. Waterlogging also implies increased health risks in many parts of the world.

Water and air quality

Solute dispersion
Toxic substances
Agrochemical pollution
Anaerobic effects
Gas emissions

In general the purer the water, the more valuable and useful it is for riverine ecology and for abstractions to meet human demands such as
irrigation, drinking and industry. Conversely, the more polluted the water, the more expensive it is to treat to satisfactory levels. The causes and
impacts of reduced water quality are illustrated in Figure 5. Tables 6, 7 and 8 are generalized water quality standards for irrigation, drinking and
fresh-water fisheries. As soil salinity levels rise above plant tolerance levels, both crops and natural vegetation are affected. This leads to
disruption of natural food chains and the loss of agricultural production. The critical problem of salinity is covered in the section Soil properties
and salinity effects.

Solute dispersion

The changing hydrological regime associated with irrigation schemes may alter the capacity of the environment to assimilate water soluble
pollution. In particular, reductions in low flows result in increased pollutant concentrations already discharged into the water course either from
point sources, such as industry, irrigation drains and urban areas, or from non-point sources, such as agrochemicals leaking into groundwater and
soil erosion. Reduced flood flows may remove beneficial flushing, and reservoirs may cause further concentration of pollutants. Where low
flows increase, for example as a result of hydropower releases, the effect on solute dispersion is likely to be beneficial, particularly if the solutes
are not highly soluble and tend to move with sediments.
Chapter 5: Preparation of terms of reference

Determining study requirements

Contents of the TOR

The need for EIAs has become increasingly important and is now a statutory requirement in many developing countries. Similarly, all major
donors require some form of environmental analysis for irrigation and drainage projects. If an EIA is required, irrespective of the source of
funding, the promoting agency will be required to either prepare it themselves or appoint others to do the study for them.

If the promoter intends to prepare the EIA study using its own staff, reference should be made to the publications prepared by most donors and
UN agencies outlining their requirements and procedures. The World Bank Operational Directive 4.01 (1991) is perhaps the most
comprehensive and well known manual and is a useful reference text. All international organizations and bilateral agencies frequently update
their procedures and it is important to obtain the current version from the organization. Many United Nations agencies publish guidelines on
various themes related to environmental assessment of irrigation and drainage which could be of use to developing country staff if they are to
carry out an EIA and the most useful are listed in Chapter 6.

Usually government bodies do not employ sufficient staff to carry out EIAs. It is more cost effective to ask specialist consultants (local or
foreign), universities or research institutions to carry out environmental assessments. In this case terms of reference (TOR) will have to be
prepared by the project executing agency. As for any technical design or feasibility study, the terms of reference for the study will determine its
ultimate value. The preparation of terms of reference can cause considerable difficulties for non-experts and a brief guide to the major issues that
must be addressed in the TOR are given below.

Determining study requirements

There are no universal formats for terms of reference which will be suitable for every study. However, there are general rules which should be
observed when preparing TOR for the EIA of irrigation and drainage proposals. The study should ensure that the consultants focus on the major
issues and the most serious likely impacts. The opportunities for enhancing any positive benefits from the project should also be highlighted.
The study should identify the relevant natural resources, the eco-system and the population likely to be affected. Direct and indirect impacts
must be identified and any particularly vulnerable groups or species highlighted. In some instances views will be subjective and the consultants
should give an indication of the degree of risk or confidence and the assumptions on which conclusions have been drawn. In most cases the
output required will be a report examining the existing environment, the impacts of the proposed project on the environment and the affects of
the environment on the project, both positive and negative, the mitigating measures to be taken and any actions needed. Interim reports, for
example of baseline studies, should be phased to be of maximum value to parallel technical and economic studies.

The timing of the study is important. Scoping prior to a full EIA will enable the major issues to be identified. The terms of reference for the full
EIA can then be better focused. The study should be carried out early enough in the project cycle to enable recommendations to be incorporated
into the project design.

The requirements stated in the TOR will determine the length of time needed for the study, the geographical boundary of the EIA, its cost and
the type of expertise required. Baseline data collection, if needed, can be time consuming and will have a major impact on the cost and time
needed for the study. If considerable data exists, for example a good record of water quality information and hydrological statistics, the EIA may
be possible without further primary data collection. If data are scarce, time must be allowed for field measurement and analysis.

Prior to writing the TOR the following questions should be asked:

• Is the study for an environmental scoping, a full EIA or other type of study? Before preparing the TOR the purpose must be clear.

• Is the study to be for a site specific project or a regional or sectoral programme? The breadth of the study needs to be well defined.

• Will the EIA team be required to collect baseline data or does this already exist? The depth of the study and the type and quality of information
already available or needed must be known.

• Who will use the final report? Different end users will often require different information. Readers may not be technical experts and careful
thought should be given to the presentation of complex information.

• What output is required from the EIA study? Is an Environmental Action Plan to be prepared? A draft contents page for the final report as an
annex to the TOR will give some guidance to the team carrying out the study.
• Is the team responsible for all issues or are other organizations (universities, government departments) responsible for some environmental
studies? The TOR should clearly delimit responsibilities and give information on other work being done. If it is a requirement that the team liaise
or work with other organizations, including NGOs, then this should be stated. Unabridged versions of the sub-contracted studies should be made
available to the appraising authority for reference.

• What type of experts are needed in the team and for how long? An approximate estimate is needed to prepare a budget for the study and to
estimate the time period. However, the TOR should not be too rigid on the number and type of expertise to be provided as there should be some
flexibility for the team to decide on the most appropriate methodology and additional staffing.

Contents of the TOR

The TOR should commence with a brief description of the programme or project. This should include a plan of the area that will be affected
either indirectly or directly. Basic data should be given on existing and proposed irrigation and drainage in the area and the catchment
characteristics. The institutions that are involved in the proposal should also be given.

An overview of the local environment should follow the general description. This will include socio-economic information, land use, land
tenure, water use in the area and any particular aspect of the flora and fauna. If other studies have been completed a list of available reports
should be given.

A brief description should be given of the most important institutions, including those responsible for the EIA, the project executing agency and
future managers. This should be presented in the form of an organogram.

A description of the work to be undertaken should give a general set of requirements for determining the potential impacts of, and impacts on,
the proposed project. The TOR should require the consultants to cover the following points:

• whether a range of proposals should be considered and if so whether they would be less environmentally damaging;

• the main environmental effects of the proposed project, both in the project area and in the surrounding area and the timescale of the impacts;

• the size and extent of the impacts based as much as possible on quantitative data rather than qualitative assessment. In some cases it may be
necessary to highlight certain topics (such as waterlogging, resettlement etc as discussed in Chapter 4) when a particular issue is known to be of
concern. In most cases, however, it may be preferable not to mention any specific topic and make the consultant responsible for a complete
review of all topics;

• those groups that will benefit and those disadvantaged by the project;

• the impact on any rare species of plant or animal in the area;

• the impact on human health;

• the control and management aspects of the project to determine if they will be effective;

• the need for further baseline data collection or other specialist studies;

• the present policy, institutional and legislative situation and future needs;

• the mitigating measures needed and how they should be incorporated into the project design;

• the monitoring and evaluation activities that are required to ensure that mitigating measures are implemented and future problems are avoided.

The TOR should give an indication of the team considered necessary for the study. Depending on the scope of the study this may include one or
several of the following: an irrigation specialist, drainage specialist, rural sociologist, terrestrial ecologist (of various specializations), aquatic
ecologist/fisheries expert, hydrologist, agronomist, soil chemist or physicist, economist and epidemiologist. However, as mentioned earlier the
team should not be rigidly imposed on the consultant.

It is important to make provision for technology transfer. Apart from enabling in-country expertise to be built up, this will promote more
involvement and understanding of the issues raised by the study. As most EIA studies are of relatively short duration, this is probably best
achieved through the attachment of government staff to the consultants during the study or an insistence on the use of local government
personnel for some of the tasks.

The expected date of commencement and time limit should be given. An environmental screening can be done quickly as part of the general
project identification. In most cases scoping can be done in one to three months using checklists or other techniques assuming adequate data is
readily available. Up to 12 months is needed for a full EIA for a medium or large scale project although this could be longer if the project is
complex or considerable primary data have to be collected or field measurement undertaken.

The budget limit should be given in the TOR. The type of experts, and whether foreign or local, and the duration of their inputs will usually be
the deciding cost factors although a large field survey or measurement programme with laboratory analysis could significantly increase costs.

Any assistance to be provided by the Client should be clearly stated in the TOR. Reporting requirements should be clearly stated. An annex
giving a draft table of contents for the final report (the Environmental Impact Statement) is helpful as this will standardize presentation and
ensure all aspects are covered by the Consultants.

Chapter 6: References

Recommended texts
Bibliography

Recommended texts

"Environmental Impact Assessment - Theory and Practice", edited by Wathern (1988) and "Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing
Countries", edited by Biswas and Qu Geping (1987) are two of the most useful books on the general philosophy of EIA and are a good basis for
those wishing to gain a more in-depth understanding of EIA techniques.

The "ICID Checklist to Identify Environmental Effects of Irrigation, Drainage and Flood Control Projects" (Mock and Bolton, 1993) is a
valuable aid to screening, scoping and defining data requirements. Indeed, the layout in Chapter 4 generally follows that of the checklist which
makes it an ideal companion volume.
The FAO series of Irrigation and Drainage Papers, currently about 50 in number, cover a wide range of topics pertinent to environmental aspects
of irrigation. The information is comprehensive and technical and many volumes are available in several languages, most notably in English,
French and Spanish.

The German development agency, GTZ, have published "Irrigation and the Environment", by Petermann (1993). This is a comprehensive two
volume handbook, totalling about 500 pages, which gives very detailed technical information. An information package is planned shortly
following the research by Petermann. This package is planned with a number of standardized sheets that may prove useful in EIA work.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) have produced
several useful volumes on EIA and water resources projects. The major donors such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and African
Development Bank have prepared their own guidelines on EIA although these tend to relate mostly to internal procedures. They are important
documents for those seeking external financing.

"The Environmental Assessment Sourcebook", World Bank Technical Paper No. 140 (1991) covers environmental issues relating to
development in most sectors. It contains special sections on dams and reservoirs and on irrigation and drainage. Apart from providing
information on the Bank's policies and procedures it gives general information on potential environmental impacts. Updates are issued from time
to time. The Sourcebook is particularly useful if financial support is required from the World Bank. The World Bank Directive on
Environmental Assessment (OD 4.01) describes the bank's policy and procedures on EIA at regional, sectoral and project levels, (1991).

PEEM, the joint WHO/FAO/UNEP/UNCHS Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control, published a technical
guidelines series in which the following volumes are already in English, French and Spanish: Guidelines for the incorporation of health
safeguards into irrigation projects (Tiffen, 1989), Guidelines for forecasting vector-borne disease implications of water resources development
(Birley, 1989) and Guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis of vector control (Phillips et al., 1993). Under preparation are Guidelines for the
promotion of environmental management by agricultural extension workers and Guidelines for monitoring health status during water resources
development. The PEEM Secretariat is located at WHO in Geneva.

A number of governments and international organizations have developed guidelines or manuals on EIA. Some developing countries have
produced guidelines for the EIA of water resources development (see references) which cover the irrigation sub-sector to some extent. Existing
guidelines are often oriented towards local requirements but offer information which is of value to readers from all countries. A useful text of
value to most Asian countries is the Guidelines for Sustainable Water Resources Development and Management by the Central Water
Commission, India (1992).
Bibliography

ADB. Environment risk assessment: dealing with uncertainty in EIA. Environment Paper No. 7. Asian Development Bank, Manila, The
Philippines.

ADB. 1992. Guidelines for health impact assessment of development projects. Environment Paper No. 11. Asian Development Bank, Manila,
The Philippines.

ADB. 1992. Guidelines for the Health Impact Assessment of Development Projects. Asian Development Bank, Manila, The Philippines.

ADB. 1987. Environmental Guidelines for Selected Agricultural and Natural Resources Development Projects. Asian Development Bank,
Manila, The Philippines.

AfDB. 1992. Environmental Assessment Guidelines. African Development Bank, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.

Ahmad, Y. and Sammy, G. 1988. Public Involvement: Guidelines to EIA in Developing Countries. Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Ahmad, Y. and Sammy, G. 1985. Guidelines to Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries. Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Alhéretière, D. 1982. EIA and agricultural development. A comparative law study. Environment Paper No 2. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 (Revised). FAO, Rome, Italy.

Birley, M. H. 1989. Guidelines for forecasting the vector-borne disease implications of water resource development. PEEM Guidelines Series
2. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Biswas, A.K. and Qu Geping. 1987. EIA for Developing Countries. Tycooly Publishing, London.

Biswas, A.K. and Agarwala, S. B. C. 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries. Butterworth-Heinemenn, Guildford,
UK.

Blum, B. 1984. A Handbook on EIA for Public Decision Makers. UNEP, Paris, France.
Burbridge, P.R. 1988. Environmental guidelines for resettlement projects in the humid tropics. FAO Environmental Guidelines Paper 9. Rome,
Italy.

Cernea, M. and Guggenheim, S. (eds.). 1993. Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement Policy, Practice and Theory. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Chambers, R. 1981. Rural Development - Putting the Last First. Longman, London, UK.

Chimbale et al. 1993. Schistosomiasis Control Measures for Small Irrigation Schemes in Zimbabwe. HR Wallingford Report OD 128.
Wallingford, UK.

Craine, L.E. 1971. Institutions for managing lakes and bays. National Resources Journal II.

CWC. 1992. Guidelines for Sustainable Water Resources Development and Management. Central Water Commission, India.

Dugan, P.J. 1990. Wetland Conservation. A Review of Current Issues and Required Action. IUCN. The World Conservation Union, Cambridge,
UK.

DVWK. 1993. Ecologically sound resources management in irrigation. DVWK Bulletin 19. Verlag Paul Parey, Hamburg/Berlin, Germany.

EBRD. 1992. Environmental Procedures. EBRD, London.

ERL. 1990. Environmental Assessment Procedures in the UN System. Environmental Resources Limited, London, UK.

ESCAP. 1987. Environmental Management for Sustainable Socio-economic Development. ESCAP, Geneva, Switzerland.

ESCAP. 1985. EIA Guidelines for Planners and Decision Makers. ESCAP, Geneva, Switzerland.

FAO. 1992. Les périmètres irrigués en droit comparé afraicain (Madagascar, Maroc, Niger, Sénégel, Tunisie). FAO, Rome, Italy (French only).

Feachem, R., McGarry, M. and Mara, D. 1977. Water, Wastes and Health in Hot Climates. John Wiley, London.
Goodland, R. and Daly, H. 1992. Environmental Assessment and Sustainability in the World Bank. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.

Graham Smith, L. 1993. Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, UK.

Holling, C.A. 1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley, London.

Hunter, J.M., Ray, L., Chu, K.Y. and Adekoi-John, E.O. 1993. Parasitic Diseases in Water Resource Development - The Need for Intersectoral
Negotiation. WHO, Rome, Italy.

ICOLD. 1980. Dams and the environment. ICOLD Bulletin 35. Paris, France.

Mather, T.H. and That, T.T. 1984. Environmental management for vector control of rice fields. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 41. FAO, Rome,
Italy.

Mekouar, M.A. 1990. The Environmental Impact of Economic Incentives for Agricultural Production: A Comparative Law Study. FAO, Rome,
Italy.

Mock, J.F. and Bolton, P. 1993. The ICID Environmental Checklist to Identify Environmental Effects of Irrigation, Drainage and Flood Control
Projects. HR Wallingford, Wallingford, UK.

Munasinghe, M. 1993. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.

OECD. 1986. Environmental assessment and development assistance. Environment Monographs No 4. OECD, Paris.

Pendse, Y.D., Roa, R.V. and Sharma, P.K. 1989. Environmental impact methodologies. Shortcomings and appropriateness for water resources
projects in developing countries. Water Resources Development 5(4).

Pescod, M.B. 1992. Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 47. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Petermann, T. 1993. Irrigation and the Environment. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.

Phillips, M., Mill, A. and Dye, C. 1993. Guidelines for cost effectiveness analysis of vector control. PEEM Guidelines Series 3. WHO, Geneva.
Pike, E.G. 1987. Engineering Against Schistosomiasis/Bilharzia. MacMillan, London.

Rhoades, J.D., Kandiah, A. and Mashali, A.M. 1992. The use of saline waters for crop production. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 48. FAO,
Rome, Italy.

Tiffen, M. 1989. Guidelines for the incorporation of health safeguards into irrigation projects through intersectoral cooperation. PEEM
Guidelines Series 1. WHO, Geneva.

Todd, D.K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley, London.

UN. 1994. Trends in EIA of Energy Projects. UN, New York, USA.

UNECE. Application of EIA principles to policies, plans and programmes. Environmental Series No 5. UNECE, New York.

UNECE. Policies and systems of EIA. Environmental Series No 4. UNECE, New York.

UNDP. 1992. Handbook and Guidelines for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development. UNDP, New York.

Wathern, P. (ed.). 1988. Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice. Routledge, London.

WHO. 1982. Manual on environmental management for mosquito control, with special emphasis on malaria vectors. Pub. No. 66. WHO,
Geneva, Switzerland.

WHO. 1989. Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. Technical Report
Series No 778. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

WHO. 1993. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Vol 1. Recommendations. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Winpenny, J.T. 1991. Values for the Environment. HMSO, London, UK.

World Bank. 1991. Environmental assessment source book. Vol 1, Policies, procedures and cross-sectoral issues. Technical paper 139. World
Bank, Washington D.C., USA.
World Bank. 1991. Environmental assessment source book. Vol II. Sectoral guidelines. Technical paper 140. World Bank, Washington D.C.,
USA.

World Bank. 1991. Operational Directive 4.01: Environmental Assessment. World Bank, Washington D.C., USA

World Bank. 1993. World Development Report - Investing in Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Worthington, E.B. 1977. Arid Lands Irrigation in Development Countries. Environmental Problems and Effects. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Wramner, P. 1989. Procedures for EIA of FAO's field projects. FAO, Rome, Italy.